Carless Board of Supervisor to Run for SF Mayor

David Chiu, who is currently the President of the Board of Supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco has announced his candidacy for mayor. He also doesn't own a car and has pledged to work to improve mass transit. He said, "As your candidate for mayor who doesn’t own a car, who gets to City Hall either on the number 49 or on my bicycle, I think we can do better.”

Wow. That's someone I can take seriously. I hope that his candidacy raises the profile of mass transit as a campaign issue throughout California. I believe that there is only so much a city or county can do to improve mass transit without responsible mass transit policy by the state or federal government.

A Nobel Prize for the Imperial Chief

When the news that Barack Obama had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize became concrete in my mind, I thought, a Nobel Prize for the imperial chief; a man who is president of a country involved in two wars. He opposed the Iraq war, but was not yet in the Senate. If he had been in the Senate back then, it is not an exageration to think that he perhaps would have voted for the resolution that authorized the use of force, given the pressure that is exerted on senators and the fact that Barack Obama is a centrist. This is a quality that has contributed to his success, even since the days as president of the Harvard Law Review, based on what I've read.

It's not just ironic that he be awarded the Nobel Prize at the same time that there is talk of escalating the war in Afghanistan, it is also ironic and disillusioning, that Barack Obama has not yet acknowledged that the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong.

Another irony is that he still maintains the economic blockade against Cuba, in spite of the fact that all of the governments of the western hemisphere have asked him to lift it, the majority of Americans are against the blockade, and he does not need the consent of Congress to lift it. This is revealing of the fact that the empire has owners. He also has not closed the prison in Guantanamo.

The seven new American military bases proposed within Colombia are also contrary to the process of peace. When Barack Obama refers to Venezuela as a "rogue state" that supports terrorism, one does not know if Barack Obama genuinely believes what he says or is cynically apealing to right wing and imperialist tendencies within his country. They are belicose and conflagrant words that collide with the image of a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

There is a video on Youtube titled, "El Discurso Que Estados Unidos No Esperaba"(The Speech which the United States Did Not Expect) in which all of the presidents of the continent are gathered around a table and Hugo Chavez talks about and denies the alleged economic aid he gives to the FARC. Immediately afterwards, the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe, gets up, goes straight to the Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, shakes his hand, and exchanges a few words with him. Immediately after this he goes straight to Hugo Chavez and does the same thing. What this video suggests to me is that not even the President of Colombia believes in the shit which Barack Obama says.

On other occasions, he appeals to the ignorance and the prejudice of Americans, like when he proposes eliminating oil imports from Venezuela and the Middle East within ten years. When he made this proposal, the latest available data was from 2007, and such reductions would barely amount to a reduction of 17.3% of the total oil which Americans consume. The Nobel Prize committee has awarded the prize to Al Gore for his work in the area of climate change, and now awards the prize to Barack Obama in part for the same reason, but according to its criteria, is a reduction of 17.3% over 10 years on the part of a country which consumes 24% of the world's oil a goal which is commensurate with the threat that climate change represents?

Barack Obama could have proposed to reduce oil consumption by 17%, 25%, or 35% without having to wrap the goal in a turban and dress it in the military uniform of a dictator who hates America, which is how many media outlets portray Hugo Chavez. In the meanwhile, the vast majority of the rest of the industrialized countries of the world have per capita oil consumption rates which are 40-60% below that of the U.S. A country can be rich without consuming so much oil.

The U.S. can reach a similar rate, but it would have to develop mass transit, a "socialist" solution which would not go well with oil coompanies, which the vast majority of Americans are compelled to make rich because of the lack of mass transit, and who are some of the owners of the empire and the bosses of Barack Obama himself. You all cannot imagine the isolation, the loss of social and economic opportunities which results from living in a city like Los Angeles without a car. We are compelled to destroy the planet simply to be able to live our lives to the fullest.

The contradiction is immense and reminds me of something which Fidel Castro recently wrote. That the immense American military power is not a necessity of the world, but a necessity for maintaining the economic system which it has imposed on the world.

On the other hand, like Barack Obama said in his acceptance speech, "The Nobel Peace Prize has not been used just to honor specific achievement, it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes." Perhaps Barack Obama and the rest of the world will be conditioned. In determining what steps to follow in Afhanistan and other regions of the world, Barack Obama will have in mind that he is a Noble Peace Prize winner and that he should do more to achieve peace. Perhaps leaders of the world, especially from the so called "third world," will have in mind that he has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, in part because of his ambitions to confront global warming, and demand more and be more firm in Copenhagen and beyond. Perhaps Americans ourselves can demand more, like instead of perpetuating a transportation system that compels us to make oil companies rich and which requires invasions of other countries in order to sustain, we can develop mass transit as the primary mode of transportation.

The Useless Election

Today, California is voting on six initiatives that have all been placed on the ballot by the state legislature. Among them, proposition 1A extends recently passed tax increases for two additional years. Three of them combined will raise $6 billion dollars through borrowing and redirecting money, thus reducing the projected budget deficit to $16 billion from $21 billion. A mass of mainstream politicians including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa support the measures which were the result of the most overdue budget in state history. The Los Angeles Times endorsed all of them except 1B. Five out of six are expected to lose and the measure with the most minimal impact, limiting pay increases for legislators if there is a budget crisis, is expected to pass.

I have not been paying much attention until very recently, don't plan to vote, and have taken the time to learn about the propositions out of curiosity. The measures are largely short term solutions that avoid fundamental changes the state needs to make, such as reforming proposition 13, which Arnold Schwarzenegger has explicitly opposed in the past. Borrowing $5 billion from future lottery earnings essentially relies upon the same logic as borrowing $15 billion to fix the budget problem in 2004. Except now the problem which Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged to fix when first elected is worse than ever. According to the election material provided by the Secretary of State of California, "Even with the adoption of the 2009-10 budget package and assuming that all of the propositions on this ballot pass, it is expected that the state would face multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls in the coming years."

Yet Arnold Schwarzenegger has never considered taking the advice of his economic advisor in 2003, Warren Buffet, to repeal or reform proposition 13. Neither have the voters been asked to approve a reform of this measure, even though a reform of this measure is ostensibly of mutual interest to the Governor and the average Californian. The proposition capped property taxes and created an unfair property tax system which contributes to the budget crisis, shortchanges the education system and local governments, and creates housing scarcity and higher housing costs.

We've also never been asked to vote for universal healthcare, even though bills have been introduced in the legislature in the past. We've never been asked to fund the mass transit system our state direly needs, and we've never been asked to vote for publicly financed elections. We've never been asked to make the fundamental changes which are necessary to create a fairer and more sustainable society.

California collects most of its revenue from the personal income and the sales taxes. During what is being referred to as the most severe recession since the 1930s, revenue from such sources will fall more precipitously than revenue from property taxes. The palpable sudden loss in wealth, power, and prestige that the U.S. is undergoing is the sound of the empire crumbling. California must transform itself and not allow itself to be buried under the rubble by perpetuating a system which is regarded as malfunctional .

The election is as useless as Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor. He pledged to fix the budget problem, now its' worse than ever. He denied that California had a revenue problem, but instead had a spending problem. The current drastic conditions have changed his mind. He began as a right wing advocate, only to confront defeat, and subsequently move further and further to the center until now he's just about the same as the man he replaced, Grey Davis.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is historically important not just because he's a movie star married to a Kennedy, but also because he broke with the Anglo-saxon hegemonists. During newscasts covering budget negotiations anchors and reporters have commented, "Arnold is not acting like a Republican, he's acting more like a Democrat." Every significant piece of legislation which he has signed during his governorship is virtually guaranteed to have been written by a Democrat. The most historically important perhaps being AB 32, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which was not only written by Democrats, but by a Mexican! Fabian Nuñez and Fran Pavley coauthored the bill. What awaits us after Arnold is perhaps the first Mexican governor of California since Pio Pico.

Hugo Chavez on Al Jazeera: The multi-lingual video



One of the most powerful aspects of the internet is that it allows a person to have a bird's eye perspective. No longer do we have to limit ourselves to a monolithic perspective from a national television network. Such a monolithic perspective can be compared to other points of view throughout the world. One of my favorite personalities is Hugo Chavez for this reason. I found this video interesting because he is speaking in Spanish, there is an Arabic voice-over translation, and English subtitles, creating an intersection for perspectives from diverse regions of the world's population.

Here, Hugo discusses the American empire, how it is a threat to the world, how it attempts to perpetuate the American lifestyle through the acquisition of oil resources, and how such an empire must be countered through the rise of a multi-polar world. Since this interview, the American empire has become further debilitated, and the multi-polar world has gained strength.

Think Swiss, About Transportation
The Swiss Embassy of Washington D.C. in collaboration with the Federal Office of Transport in Switzerland has created a traveling exhibit which launched on February 12th and is showing at George Washington University in Washington D.C. The exhibit is titled, “The Challenge of Sustainable Transportation for the 21st Century: The Prospects for Switzerland and the U.S.” Switzerland is a country which has a per capita oil consumption rate which is 47.9% of the United States, and according to the organizers of the exhibit, has the most used mass transit system in Western Europe. After learning more about the exhibit through the PDF that was published about it, I hope that it comes to California. According to the PDF, a bus usually requires only 5 passengers for it to become more carbon efficient than a car. If such is the case, why are there not more buses in Los Angeles? Following are some graphics from the PDF that serve to illuminate a society which for the most part lives in darkness and struggles to see the light regarding transportation and sustainable energy policies.

Barack Obama and the Mass Transit Revolution

In our society, certain goals are acknowledged to be necessary for achieving ecological as well as economic sustainability, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing petroleum consumption. Reducing petroleum consumption would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and since 99% of the fuel that powers American vehicles is oil according to the Department of Energy, transforming the transportation system of the society is fundamental for achieving these goals, as well as other quality of life goals such as reducing traffic and reducing smog.

Los Angelenos are intimately familiar with the undesirable results of compelling the vast majority of the population to drive in order to achieve an adequate level of mobility. They have also taken action: 67.9% of Los Angeles county residents recently voted for a measure(R) that will increase their local sales tax by 0.5% and contribute 65% of the revenue to mass transit. On a statewide level, Californians approved $9.95 billion of bonds to begin the construction of a bullet train that will connect Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2 1/2 hours(Prop 1A). In contrast to this, Californians rejected $3.425 billion of bonds to subsidize the purchase of high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles(Prop10).

While politicians have railed against foreign oil dependence over the last few years, overall U.S. oil consumption barely diminished until very recently. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2007 American oil consumption dropped by 0.0003% from the previous year. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, whose statistics regarding the U.S. are virtually identical to the EIA's, yet also contains statistics for most countries and all of the continents, and thus composes a global portrait, the total share of the world's oil which Americans consumed in 2007 was 23.9%. The disproportionate consumption of this vital resource by the U.S. is a fact which is becoming increasingly well known, referenced by everyone from Barack Obama to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Although American oil consumption has been steadily rising since 1984 with a slip here and there, in November the Energy Information Administration projected that U.S. oil demand would drop by 5.4% in 2008 due to the U.S. economic downturn, the largest drop since 1980.

Barack Obama has declared that energy is the most important issue that our future economy will face. While his energy plan proposes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 through a cap and trade system, it sets no explicit goal for how much the U.S. will reduce its consumption of one of the two biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and what the Department of Energy refers to as "the lifeblood of America's economy," i.e, oil, in the short or long term.

A numerical figure for how much the U.S. will reduce its consumption of oil under his plan must be deduced from his pledge which he has declared on numerous occasions to eliminate Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil imports within 10 years. The goal in itself is an appeal to the ignorance and prejudice of Americans, and an analysis of his energy plan reveals means towards achieving it, and the greater goal of greenhouse gas emission reductions, which are contradictory, while it largely ignores the most fundamental solution which could have the most profound impact on many parts of the country, including California.

To begin with, the declaration promotes the misconception that the U.S. is dependent on the Middle East for oil, which is not the case. The United States imports more oil from the single country of Canada than it does from the Middle East. It imports more oil from South America than it does from the Middle East, and more oil from Africa than it does from the Middle East. Middle Eastern oil imports, at 2,208 thousand barrels daily, account for 16.4% of total U.S. oil imports according to the EIA. Regarding the "rogue" state of Venezuela, as Barack Obama likes to refer to it, at 1,361 thousand barrels daily, Venezuelan imports represent 10.1% of our oil imports according to the EIA. Such figures would add up to a reduction of roughly 26.5% of our total imports.

However, it is important to place these figures in context. The United States is the third largest oil producer in the world, producing 8.0% of the world's total, second only to Saudi Arabia and the Russian Federation which each produce 12.6%. The U.S. produces more oil than Canada and Mexico combined. It produces more oil than the entire Central and South American region, and it produces more than 2.5 times more oil than the country of Venezuela. This means that eliminating 26.5% of our oil imports over 10 years, only translates into reducing our overall oil consumption by 17.3% over 10 years.

To give greater perspective to this figure let us compare it to what other industrialized countries which already had lower per capita oil consumption rates accomplished during the same period of time in which the U.S. reduced its total oil consumption by 0.0003%. The United Kingdom reduced its oil consumption by 5%, driving its per capita oil consumption rate down to 40.9% that of the U.S. Switzerland reduced its oil consumption by 9.9%, driving its per capita oil consumption rate down to 47.9% that of the U.S. Germany reduced its oil consumption by 9.0%, driving its per capita oil consumption rate down to 44% that of the U.S. What these figures demonstrate, as well as the recent downturn in U.S. oil consumption, is that to propose in a costumed manner that the U.S. reduce its oil consumption by 17.3% over 10 years is hardly an ambitious goal. It is emphatically incommensurate with the larger goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

While some of his plan's proposals can work towards achieving his goal such as increasing fuel economy standards by 4 percent per year, other proposals will be largely inane within the timeframe of 10 years; such as getting 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015, which means that there will still be in excess of 250 million conventional cars on the road, and creating a $7,000 tax credit for purchasing an advanced vehicle. Regarding increasing fuel economy standards by 4 percent per year, this proposal is largely redundant because corporate average fuel economy(CAFE) standards have been legislated to increase to 35 mile per gallon by 2020 for cars and light trucks.

The primary goals embedded in Barack Obama's energy plan are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce petroleum consumption, and provide economic relief to Americans. Eliminating Middle East and Venezuelan oil imports obliquely serves the goal of reducing petroleum consumption, but does not serve the other two goals as one might imagine. The top five oil exporters to the U.S. are Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Eliminating Middle East and Venezuelan oil imports would leave as the U.S.'s primary sources of oil imports Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria. Nigeria is a country that has lived with constant political instability which would make the U.S. economy more vulnerable to a price surge; Mexico is a country with diminishing proved oil reserves, which now stand at 9.6 years of production; and Canada whose proved oil reserves stand at 22.9 years of production, presents a dilemma: oil extracted from Canada's tar sands creates 3 times the greenhouse gases which conventional oil extraction creates. The U.S.'s own proved reserves to production ratio stands at 11.7 years. Potential new sources of oil such as that extracted from shale may create as much as 4 times the greenhouse gases as conventional oil extraction creates. According to Barack Obama's energy plan, he wishes to expedite such a process.

Achieving all of the primary goals outlined in Barack Obama's energy plan is improbable because while he makes proposals to relieve economic pressure, these very same proposals stimulate consumption, such as, stimulating and expediting domestic production. Providing a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to American families from a windfall tax profits tax on oil companies will relieve economic pressure, but increase consumption. Swapping oil from the strategic petroleum reserve to drive down prices, would increase consumption.

The plan also calls for phasing in 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels into the fuel supply by 2030. A proposal that will make little difference in reducing oil consumption within a 10 year time frame, but has moderate potential in the mid to long term. Total U.S. gasoline consumption in 2007 was 142 billion gallons according to the Energy Information Administration. Diesel fuel accounted for another 64 billion gallons. We cannot assume that the price of such advanced biofuels will be lower than what the current price of gasoline is now or was several months ago.

Only at the very end of his energy plan, does Barack Obama dedicate one paragraph under the title, "Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities," to the concept that if the vast majority of the population was not compelled to drive everywhere, we would not consume nearly a quarter of the world's oil.

"Over the long term, we know that the amount of fuel we will use is directly related to our land use decisions and development patterns. For the last 100 years, our communities have been organized around the principle of cheap gasoline...They(Barack Obama and Joe Biden) believe that we must devote significantly more attention to investments that will make it easier for us to walk, bicycle and access other transportation alternatives. They are committed to reforming the federal transportation funding and leveling employer incentives for driving and public transit."

The emphasis of his plan is essentially inverted, and building more livable and sustainable communities should be a greater priority than increasing consumption. His plan does not provide details, yet Barack Obama will have the opportunity to demonstrate what he means by "reforming federal transportation funding," soon enough. A federal commission created by congress has recommended that the federal gasoline tax be raised by 10 cents and eventually by 40 cents over 5 years in order to maintain the solvency of the Federal Highway Trust Fund which funds the nations roads and highways, as well as mass transit. This is a far cry from the manner in which Hillary Clinton and John McCain appealed to the ignorance of Americans by suggesting that the federal gasoline tax be repealed, albeit in a temporary manner. Barack Obama, to his credit, did not participate in this, but according to the Associated Press, Barack Obama has expressed concern about raising fuel taxes in our current economic climate. Should one assume that Barack Obama would rather see the Federal Highway Trust Fund go bankrupt within the next couple of years than increase the federal gas tax by 10 cents?

The commission also recommended that states raise their gasoline taxes and that the government devise a different method for funding the construction and maintenance of the nation's highways. While building more highways and roads is often seen as way to relieve traffic congestion, Americans need to consider the value of constructing more roads when our society has reached a stage where dozens of millions of Americans are economically challenged by inevitably high gasoline prices, and dozens of millions of Americans can no longer afford to purchase new vehicles because of the financial crisis and the effects it has had on our economy. Moreover, the state of the economy is directly related to the disproportionate consumption of oil of our society. As the price of gasoline and diesel rose, so did the price of goods and services across the economy, straining American consumers and businesses. Conversely, as the price of gasoline rose, the value of homes in the exurbs, places which are remotely located from other population centers, began to drop. These are symptoms of an exorbitantly expensive transportation model which Americans have done very little to change.

Instead, our society has embarked on a race to develop alternative fuels and high fuel economy vehicles, before dozens of millions of Americans become trapped in their urban and suburban ghettos. Up until now, our society has achieved limited results, and based on Barack Obama's proposals and readily observable realities, we are likely to achieve limited results in the short and mid term future. Yet, there is also the opportunity for transformation. An increase in the federal gasoline tax will automatically make more money available for mass transit because 20% of the revenue is apportioned for mass transit. If the stated goals of our society are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce petroleum dependence, and improve the economy, a greater share of federal gasoline tax revenue should be apportioned for mass transit. Here, Barack Obama will have an opportunity to demonstrate how superficial or how profound the change he has proposed for America is.

Some of the cuts in oil consumption in other industrialized nations may be attributable to a slowdown in economic activity, but what is inescapable is the fundamental role which mass transit systems play in these societies. Mass transit allows these societies to maintain lower oil consumption rates and when the price of oil and its refined products climb, the citizens of the urban areas of these societies have the option to consume less, while still maintaining an adequate level of mobility. In the U.S., vast portions of its citizens simply don't have this option, our demand is inelastic. It is illustrative to point out that within the U.S., the state which has the lowest per capita gasoline consumption rate is New York. What is also inescapable, is that when the price of oil climbs, it disproportionately adversely affects the U.S. economy.

The path towards reducing petroleum dependence outlined by Barack Obama has already been traveled by California, without much success, and in other instances, such as with the aformentioned propositon 10, and in 2006 with proposition 87, which would have imposed $4 billion of taxes on oil producers to research alternative energy, rejected by California voters.

In 2000, the state legislature passed Assembly Bill 2076 which required the California Energy Commission and the California Air Resources Board to examine ways that California could reduce its dependence on petroleum. The agencies published a report in 2003 titled, "Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence." The 19 page report does not discuss mass transit. Its main recommendation was that California reduce its gasoline and diesel consumption by 15% below the 2003 level by 2020 and maintain that reduction for the foreseeable future, relying primarily on vehicle efficiency improvements and the introduction of alternative fuels to petroleum.

From 2003 to 2007 gasoline sales generally increased and the difference between the two years was an increase of .0007% by 2007 in California. The Board of Equalization has not yet reported sales for the fourth quarter of 2008, but for the first three quarters of 2008, gasoline sales dropped by 3.8% compared to the first three quarters of 2007, and dropped 3.3% compared to the first three quarters of 2003. Regarding diesel sales in California, from 2003 to 2007, they increased by 15.5%. For the first three quarters of 2008 compared to the first three quarters of 2003, diesel sales increased by 8%.

The recent drop in petroleum consumption is largely due to the dire effects that $3.50 an $4.00 per gallon gasoline has had on our economy. Which is why recommending that California reduce its petroleum consumption by 15% below 2003 levels by 2020 in 2003 was a recommendation that did not seem to have much of a practical application to reality. What is the point of reducing petroleum dependence by 15% below 2003 levels by 2020 if our economy will have collapsed by then, from the weight of that petroleum dependence? The authors of these studies are no doubt experts at making calculations and figuring out what can be produced with available resources and assumed to be available resources, but not everybody can know everything. I doubt that they had the predictive ability to have anticipated the burst of the housing bubble, the financial crisis, that American car companies would be on the verge of bankruptcy, the degree or severity with which climate change occurs, the record high unemployment figures, the degree to and pace at which oil demand increases in Asia and Latin America and the inevitable economic squeeze this creates for the radically car dependent American population. Otherwise, their recommendation would not be logical. Not considering mass transit as a viable option towards reducing petroleum consumption and not pursposefully creating a more sustainable environment was, and is, willful ignorance.

As examples of this willful ignorance consider the responses which I received in 2005 from some of the principle authors of the aforementioned report. Susan Brown wrote, "Based on available research, and our analysis of the potential for public transit in the technical appendices to the AB 2076 Report, we concluded that even doubling use of public transit in California, would have a minor(as I recall about 2 percent effect) on reducing petroleum demand."

Yes, if vehicle miles traveled by mass transit are 1% of total vehicle miles traveled in California, as was determined by the authors in the appendices, doubling use of mass transit would only reduce petroleum dependence by 2 percent or some other small figure, assuming that doubling the use of mass transit would bring total vehicle miles traveled by mass transit to a whopping 2%. Yet, imagine a mass transit revolution that created the type of mass transit systems that Europeans enjoy. California is the 8th largest economy in the world and Californians spent nearly $60 billion on gasoline and diesel in 2007. What is lacking is not resources, but will and imagination.

Gerry Bemis provided me an equally obtuse response: "The Energy Commission sees mass transit as providing only a modest reduction in petroleum demand, maybe 5% or so. Not every city has an efficient transit system…Much of Sacramento is not well served by our transit system due to the length of trips and/or need for multiple transfers."

While California's official policies remain heavily biased and weighted towards alternative fuels, policy makers have opened their minds to the role that mass transit can and will have to play. In response to Assembly Bill 1007, passed in 2005, the CEC and CARB published in 2007 a report titled, "State Alternative Fuels Plan." The plan proposes that a five part strategy is needed to meet California's greenhouse gas emission and petroleum consumption reduction goals. Part of that strategy is to "maximize the use of mass transit, encourage smart growth and land use planning to help reduce vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled."

In discussing California's gasoline and diesel consumption which has increased nearly 50 percent since 1986, the report cites, "lack of mass transit" among the reasons for this increase.

The report also acknowledges that "alternative fuels alone will not be sufficient to meet California's aggressive 2050 GHG emissions reduction goal." It states that reducing green house gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 could occur by, among other things, "Increasing use of mass transit and public transportation, as an alternative to personal motor vehicle use."

The strategy that California is pursuing is likely over dependent on alternative fuels, and does not emphasize conservation enough. According to the report, "The transportation fuel market is enormously complex...To understand the magnitude of this undertaking, increasing the use of non-petroleum fuels to 20 percent of on-road fuel demand by 2020 is equivalent to 4.8 billion gallons of non-petroleum fuels. Achieving this goal will require the introduction and use of an additional 370 million gallons of new non-petroleum fuel supplies into the California transportation market each year, or about 1 million gallons of new supply each day for the next 12 years."

If California's plan as outlined in the report is successfully executed, it would mean that by 2020, largely due to inevitable population growth, Californians will consume 19.2 billion gallons of petroleum based fuels. This is a small increase in demand on our part, while there may be less supply on the the world market, at the same time that demand in diverse parts of the world will have increased. Based on the observable effects of maintaining such a high volume of consumption in current economic conditions, it is remotely possible that consuming nearly 20 billion gallons of petroleum based fuels in the near future is even sustainable. It is apparent more than ever that mass transit is an absolute economic necessity, apart from being an ecological and cultural one as well.

Since 2003 when "Reducing California's Petroluem Dependence" was published, the state of California has consumed roughly 88 billion gallons of gasoline. Increased taxation of 20 cents per gallon would have resulted in $17.6 billion that could have been partially or completely spent to fund the world class mass transit California direly needs. If, according to the State Alternative Fuels Plan, "by enacting AB 1007, the Governor and Legislature have established that it is now the clear and unambiguous policy of the State of California to move decisively away from petroleum fuels," then it is logical to discourage the widespread indiscriminate consumption of petroleum fuels, particularly because of the profound ecological damage which they cause. Increased taxation nominally raises the cost, yet over time it can reduce and moderate prices by moderating demand, if such taxes were to be invested in mass transit. Thus, increased petroleum fuel taxation is completely logical.

Standing in the way of this, are Republicans who are philosophically against any and all tax increases, and in the midst of California's budget crisis have signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Due to the fact that a two thirds majority of the legislature is required in California to raise taxes or pass a budget, Republicans, who hold slightly more than one third of legislative seats, can hold the state hostage and impede progress.

Over the years, Democrats have for the most part been ineffective in challenging the absolute irrationality of the Republican position. Among their recent proposals is to eliminate the gasoline tax and replace it with a per gallon fee which would be 13 cents higher than the current tax. As the Los Angeles Times explains, this scheme threatens funding for mass transit on the part of the state of California, because such "fees" may not be able to be used to fund mass transit. Yet, according to the L.A. Times editorial board, Democrats feel compelled to do this because of the absolute refusal of Republicans to consider any tax increase in order to balance the state's budget. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in an acute contradiction to AB 1007 and AB 32, and the general perception of him as a "green" politician, has cut funding for mass transit by billions of dollars while in office. The governor and Republican legislators are part of the American mindset which simply does not see value in mass transit and condemns our society to disproportionate oil consumption and ecological destruction.

Under the current manner which the gasoline tax is apportioned, 20% of the revenue goes to mass transit. Yet, to be consistent with our official goals and laws, it should be higher than this. Mike Fueur who authored AB 2321 which authorized placing Measure R on the Los Angeles county ballot, proposed in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece in 2007 that the state legislature could give priority to mass transit or at least establish parity between mass transit and highway construction and maintenance with a 2/3 majority vote of the legislature. Perhaps Californians will have to recall the current governor or certain Republican legislators, wait to achieve a Democratic super majority in the legislature, use the initiative process, or hope that several Republican legislators see the light.

Los Angelenos have already voted to invest 26 additional billion dollars(65% of the expected 40 billion from Measure R)over the next thirty years to fund mass transit in Los Angeles, yet they can also have a decisive influence on statewide policy, thus generating greater investment in mass transit in Los Angeles. Los Angeles county is neither the most conservative, nor the most liberal county in the state. This, combined with the fact of it being the most populous county perfectly positions it to shift the weight of the state in whatever direction it sways. We have the opportunity to transform our society in a profound manner.

The primary goals which Barack Obama has outlined in his energy plan will be achievable if mass transit plays a far greater role in his plan. When I look out upon the freeways of Los Angeles, a city of nearly 4 million people which has the worst traffic and air quaility in the country, and is part of a county of 10 million people, which in itself is the 17th largest economy in the world, what occurs to me is that what is fundamentally wrong with our society is not Middle Eastern or Venezuelan oil imports, what is fundamentally wrong is that the car is the primary mode of transportation. Ignoring such a fundamental solution leaves Barack Obama chasing ghosts and bogeymen, illustrated by his pledge to "crack down on excessive energy speculation."

The fiscal year 2009 budget of the main local transit agency, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, was $3.408 billion. Out of this figure, $397 million or 11.6% came from the federal government, $974 million or 28.6% came from the state, but the largest part of the budget, $1.561 billion or 45.8%, came from Propositions A and C, which each represent a half cent of the local county sales tax, and were approved in previous decades. If the amount of money which the federal government contributes to the budget of the LACMTA does not significantly increase under the Barack Obama administration, with complete justification we will be able to declare that Barack Obama is a farce.

Local officials, expect a better performance from Barack Obama than George Bush. Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's press secretary Matt Szabo told the L.A. Times, "We have for the first time in Washington an administration that intends to invest in public transportation." How much remains to be seen. California is experiencing it's worst budget crisis ever, the American economy threatens to collapse, the new President makes public statements that can't be believed; in the midst of all this, there remains, the opportunity to create a mass transit revolution that will not only transform the transportation system, but can also be the foundation of a vast transformation of the socio-economic structure of the society.

Multi-Ethnic California: Make This Dream Real



Today is Martin Luther King Day, and the media is surely running superficial pieces about the civil rights leader and asking the probable question, How long have we come in achieving Martin Luther King's dream? Or perhaps, what does Martin Luther King's dream mean today?

The dream of Martin Luther King is not possible to achieve without socialism. In fact, one of his statements which he expressed on more than one occasion during his later years was that, "What this country needs is a radical redistribution of economic power." How is it possible to achieve redistribution of economic power without progressive taxation that invests in the social and economic needs of society such as healthcare, education, and mass transit?

His dream may have been expressed in terms of black children and white children joining hands as sisters and brothers, but to achieve such a vision, far more is needed than to erase prejudice and teach children the value of diversity. If one child has healthcare and one doesn't; if one has a quality education and the other one's is underfunded at the federal, state, and local level; if one child's family has the privilege of polluting the planet by driving and not experiencing it as an economic challenge, while the other one's family has the necessity of polluting the planet by driving due to horrible mass transit and experiences it as an economic challenge when the price of fuel escalates; it becomes apparent how far we are from achieving the dream. It also becomes apparent that our socio-economic structure is very far from the principles of Martin Luther King. Such a socio-economic structure could never produce the harmony which MLK spoke of, and in fact, it actually creates prejudice, fear, and racism.

Everybody knows that this country has been experiencing a cycle of concentration of wealth for at least since Reagan was President. How can this cycle be reversed? There would need to be made numerous policy changes, but I will use an example inspired from the radically car dependent metropolis of Los Angeles to illustrate the redistribution of economic power which King spoke of and relate it to the concentration of wealth which our country has been experiencing.

In Los Angeles as in most of California, almost everyone drives. Only about 6% of Los Angelenos use mass transit to get to work. Yet, demand for greater service is evident from the crowded buses and the packed subway. A lot of people can't afford to drive, either because they don't own a car or owning a car plus the additional costs of maintaining it are too high. Others who are challenged by high gasoline prices would like to have the option to use mass transit, but it is so inefficient that they prefer to pay whatever the price of gasoline is. If one subscribes to the notion that time is money, using mass transit in Los Angeles is very expensive, particularly if one considers the recent fare hike for a day pass from $3 to $5.

Of the billions of dollars which Californians spend annually on gasoline(we consume 16 billion gallons per year) a small percentage of it goes to the state in the form of taxes, the majority of it goes to oil companies, contributing to their record profits. As we can see, our socio-economic structure contributes to the cycle of concentration of wealth, and to reverse this cycle it will be necessary to make changes to the socio-economic structure.

Whenever the price of gasoline rises above $3.00, people inevitably complain and media outlets do stories discussing people's "pain." People demonize oil companies, yet we have the power to undermine their business by taxing their product and funding the only viable alternative to the massive gasoline consumption we are currently enslaved to, which is mass transit. Such a policy change would result in Californians contributing less of their income to oil companies, and contributing their income to diverse sources within their local communities, or keeping it for themselves in the form of savings.

Regarding other alternatives, such as hydrogen, ethanol, electric cars, and hybrids, we must be realistic. Hydrogen is currently not economically viable and will not be ecologically viable until we can produce vast amounts of green electricity. Ethanol is neither ecologically nor economically viable on a scale large enough to significantly reduce petroleum dependence. Electric cars and hybrids hold promise but are expensive(the upcoming Roadster costs $100,000) and can only have a limited impact in the near and mid-term future.

Most economists believe that gasoline should be taxed at a higher rate. In an article discussing why economists favor increasing the gas tax, one expert stated, "Of all the ways that U.S. consumers can spend their money, buying fuel for their cars contributes the least to the economy." I merely propose a 10 cent increase to fund mass transit with the purpose of reducing gasoline dependence, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing traffic, reducing air pollution, improving the economy, and contributing to a redistribution of economic power; from the oil companies, to the people.

Traditionally, the gasoline tax was one of, if not the most regressive taxes, but this is not the case anymore because like I previously stated, a lot of people can't afford to drive, or would like to drive less for economic reasons. Imposing a tax on ourselves which would bring tangible benefits and redistribute economic power would open our eyes to other forms of progressive taxation to fund the social and economic needs of our society such as socialized medicine and an equitable, high quality education system.

In a speech titled, "Where Do We Go From Here?" King stated, "What I'm saying to you this morning is that communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both." King's words remind us that capitalism and socialism are concepts, ideas and that every society manifests them in their own way. Western Europe is a useful example for our society. Countries such as England, Germany, France, etc are capitalist societies, but they have socialized medicine. They have forms of progressive taxation that provide for the social and economic needs of the society.

When someone such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose political philosophy of being against any and all tax increases is diametrically opposed to King's, is invited to speak at a Martin Luther King event, I get the sense that people must not know anything about Martin Luther King besides that he was a great speaker and that he wanted all of us to get along. As if good feelings solve problems. Life is far more complex, and prejudice and racism are endemic in the Los Angeles metropolis.

We will not reach the paradise of equality, opportunity, and brotherhood unless we change a sado-masochistic socio-economic structure that leaves the society rotting, waiting to explode. We will not create a common culture that values and respects our differences, and instead will have a fragmented society of warring ethnic enclaves, unless we embrace socialism.

Facing Reality

A couple of days ago an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times titled Needed by 2050: decked freeways, tunnels, tolls, trains citing studies which calculate that $140 billion needs to be spent in six Southern California counties in the next 30 years to keep congestion in check. It also cites the state Department of Finance which forecasts that California's population will increase to 60 million by 2050 and Southern California's population will increase to 31.6 million.

"Many say boosting the gas tax would be the most logical way to collect more revenue. But it is politically unpopular with prices at the pump so high. California and the federal government each impose a gasoline tax of 18 cents a gallon, a rate that has not changed since the early 1990s despite a sharp rise in gas prices. Because the tax has not been adjusted for inflation, California has struggled merely to maintain its existing roads."

What should be discussed is that increasing the gasoline tax has the potential to stabilize gasoline prices by reducing demand for gasoline if enough of the revenues are invested in mass transit. Funding mass transit will give millions of Californians the option of not consuming gasoline or driving at all. This will improve the economy as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How is it that California with a population of 38 million consumes more gasoline than the modern industrialized nation of Germany with a population of 82 million? The Germans rely on alternative fuels to a greater degree than Californians, but the huge difference is mass transit.

The article also mentions that several Southern California counties have a sales tax that is dedicated to transportation. In Los Angeles county the 1 cent per $1 tax goes to funding mass transit mostly. Increasing such a tax for the purpose of funding mass transit would increase the financially beleaguered local mass transit agency's budget by nearly 25%.

The mainstream media and the society are beginning to consider solutions, which only a couple of years ago, were not even mentioned. Californians can no longer afford the car as the primary mode of transportation. This is a reality we must face. Taxes, for the purpose of funding mass transit, are good.

The Battle for Mass Transit in Los Angeles

I arrived at the MTA's public hearing on the MTA's fare proposal to find that the meeting room was already full to capacity. A representative from the MTA announced that as long as attendants filled out a speaker form by 10am they would be alllowed to speak for one minute. By the time I filled one out, 287 people had already done so, which I thought was great. Soon thereafter the lobby of the building became full and security stopped allowing people into the building all together. I left and returned several hours later, since I figured if most of the people before me who had signed up to speak followed through it would take at least 4 hours.

I was among a lot of people who was shut out of the proceedings, so I was unaware that the board was considering a compromise proposal that involved less drastic fare hikes. I based my public commentary on the figures that had been looming before us for more than a month; an $8 day pass and a $120 monthly pass.

I was also unaware that that morning Antonio Villaraigosa had held a press conference to propose an alternative that involved raising fares by a mere %5 annually as well as borrowing. Supposedly he had released a blueprint on Monday, which I was unaware of. Were you aware of it? It wasn't on his website. For weeks the mayor said nothing about the fare hikes. I called his office several times over the course of several weeks, inquiring as to what his position was on this matter, but could not get an answer. For a mayor that talks such an excellent game on mass transit, I found the behavior strange, even disturbing.

I stand by my charges against him. He doesn't have the balls to challenge the anti-tax philosophy of conservative anglo-saxons. It is a charge that extends to the entire political establishment. There is a dragon that dominates society, and on it's scales are written the words, "Thou shalt not raise taxes." For people who want to transform the society, the challenge is to slay that dragon.

The Los Angeles Times has been citing the following statistic: the median household income for bus riders is $12,000. Based on the cost of housing in Los Angeles, it is hard to imagine that a person who earns that much could possibly consume more than $2,000 to $3,000 in taxable products and services. For such a person, a half cent increase in the local county sales tax would represent 10 to 15 more additional dollars in taxes per year. Nearly half of the MTA's budget is already financed by %1 of the local county sales tax, and a half cent increase would logically generate a proportionate amount. After Thursday's vote, such a person will be paying at least $23 more in fares per month by July 2009.

When the most regressive tax of all, the sales tax, represents such a sheer economic benefit to the poorest people of the society, it is time to slay the dragon. The ecological catastrophe we are facing as well as the inevitable, predictable, escalation in fuel prices and the possibility of fuel shortages should motivate us to do so. Our radical dependence on the automobile as the primary mode of transportation does not make sense either from an ecological point of view or an economic point of view. According to this Yahoo article citing the Government Accountability Office, the increase in U.S. gasoline prices this year has cost consumers an extra $20 billion, or about $146 for each passenger car. Complaining, handwringing and demonizing oil companies is pointless. The solution to the gasoline crisis is to increase the gasoline tax and fund mass transit. This can be done on the local, state and/or federal level.

For anti-tax people who may believe in their right to consume gasoline gratuitously, I suggest that they join the armed forces and enlist to fight in Iraq to secure oil resources. This Memorial Day, let us acknowledge the real reason why our soldiers are occupying a foreign country.

Before Thursday's fare hikes, Los Angeles had a mediocre mass transit system. After Thursday's fare hikes, Los Angeles continues to have a mediocre mass transit system. The only way to vastly improve it is through additional revenue through tax increases.

I plan on buying a car soon. I will be happy to pay $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline. How much better the society would be from an ecological, economic, and cultural perspective if people could live their lives to the fullest, as they can in other industrialized societies, without the necessity of owning a car. Unfortunately, there are too many irrational people in our society, and too many people who don't have the balls to challenge these people, and yet other people who are oblivious.

The Disturbing Case of Antonio Villaraigosa

As some of you may know, the Los Angeles MTA has announced astonishing fare hikes. A day pass will increase from $3 to $5 in July and to $8 by January, 2009, and a monthly pass will go from $52 to $75 in July and to $120 in January, 2009.

Not only will these fare hikes punish poor people, the proposal presented by MTA officials works against the declared goals of our society of reducing petroleum dependence, decreasing traffic, improving air quality, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Apart from this, the proposal contradicts just about every public statement Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has ever made about mass transit.

During the first mayoral debate he declared that "we must build mass transit on a scale we've never seen before." The proposal also includes service cuts.

During his campaign he made the claim that traffic costs the Los Angeles economy $11 billion dollars per year. This proposal will surely cause more people to drive.

Recently, during his state of the city address, he said, "We are the impoverished inheritors of a persistent refusal to plan and invest. As a result, we waste more time stuck in traffic. We get less time with our kids. And we spend more days of the year choked by smog."

He is widely regarded as a visionary political leader. He seems to understand that the car as the primary mode of transportation will only provide diminishing results. In one of his earliest speeches he declared, "We are not going to build more freeways in the city of Los Angeles."

In another of his early speeches he said, "You can use public transit. You can get where you want to go. We've got to start to articulate that vision for the city, or this isn't going to be a city where any of us want to live."

The MTA's proposal makes us the perpetuators of "a persistent refusal to plan and invest," and with the predictable results of increased traffic and pollution, contributes to a degradation of the quality of life of the region. For these reasons, it is astounding and disturbing to observe Antonio Villaraigosa's silence on this matter.

Another quote from the state of the city address: "It is outrageously shortsighted to shortchange transit investments in California's most gridlocked cities. "

When we consider how a world class mass transit system for a city like Los Angeles might be funded and sustained, consider how the MTA is currently funded. Almost half of it's budget is derived from 1% of the local county sales tax. A half-cent increase in the local county sales tax would result in at least 600 hundred million dollars in additional revenue. For a person that consumes $4,000 in taxable goods and services in a year, such an increase would represent a mere $20 in additional taxes.

According to the FY07 budget $338.8 million is derived from .25% of the 7.25% retail sales tax collected statewide under the Transportation Development Act. Additionally, $67.9 million is derived from the statewide 4.75% sales tax on diesel fuel and 4.75% sales tax on $0.09 of the state excise tax on gasoline under the State Transit Assistance program. It is the “spillover” funds from this program which Arnold Schwarzenegger is withholding from mass transit agencies.

Earlier this year when the California Transportation Committee shortchanged the county of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa led a diligent effort to claim L.A.'s share and even passed out flyers to motorists urging them to call the CTC and demand L.A.'s fair share. Most of those funds are assigned for roads and highways. There is no such effort by Antonio Villaraigosa on the part of mass transit.

That 28% of California's population resides in Los Angeles county gives the region the power and influence to shape the transportation policy of the entire state of California. A mere 10 cent increase in the gasoline tax dedicated to mass transit would result in revenue of $1.6 billion annually. Even the Los Angeles Times recently suggested that the gasoline tax should be raised or indexed to inflation.

As we can see, there are numerous options for Los Angelenos to consider regarding how to increase funding for mass transit in the region with the aim to vastly improve it. As the political leader of the region and gubernatorial hopeful, Antonio Villaraigosa has the opportunity to boldly lead the transformation of the region's transportation system, and even that of the entire state, but instead he lacks the balls to challenge the philosophy of conservative anglo-saxons which opposes any and all tax increases. A tax increase for the purpose of funding mass transit would help our society fulfill its declared goals, as well as help regulate the price of gasoline by relieving demand.

The number to the mayor's office is 213-978-0600. Perhaps the reader will be interested in encouraging the mayor to either find his balls or his principles and to state a position on the MTA's proposed fare hikes that is consistent with the declared goals of our society as well as his own public statements.